Here is a start. It sets the default to INFO (Leaves tests at DEBUG). It then does a bit of a review comparing old and new logs to see what should be promoted from DEBUG to INFO. I think that this is one of those things that will take a while to get right.... so suggest we check in this and run with it early before the release so we get used to INFO level... and as we go promote stuff we need that we forgot to surface.

stack
added a comment - 22/Mar/14 00:03 Here is a start. It sets the default to INFO (Leaves tests at DEBUG). It then does a bit of a review comparing old and new logs to see what should be promoted from DEBUG to INFO. I think that this is one of those things that will take a while to get right.... so suggest we check in this and run with it early before the release so we get used to INFO level... and as we go promote stuff we need that we forgot to surface.

-1 tests included. The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests.
Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch.
Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.

+1 javadoc. The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.

+1 javac. The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac compiler warnings.

+1 findbugs. The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs (version 1.3.9) warnings.

+1 release audit. The applied patch does not increase the total number of release audit warnings.

I'd like to commit this. It result of my comparing logs w/ DEBUG enabled and then disabled. I know that our INFO level logging is probably missing a few DEBUGs so can tell decent story on what transpired and then some INFOs should be DEBUG but this should do as a first cut. Can add new issues for other changes as folks find they need them.

stack
added a comment - 27/Mar/14 20:47 I'd like to commit this. It result of my comparing logs w/ DEBUG enabled and then disabled. I know that our INFO level logging is probably missing a few DEBUGs so can tell decent story on what transpired and then some INFOs should be DEBUG but this should do as a first cut. Can add new issues for other changes as folks find they need them.

-1 tests included. The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests.
Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch.
Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.

Committed to trunk. I got a bunch of +1s above...not for patch explicitly for the idea but I am going to use them committing this... it is a boring patch to review and it you have to see it in action to get a sense of whether it 'works' or not.

stack
added a comment - 27/Mar/14 23:12 Committed to trunk. I got a bunch of +1s above...not for patch explicitly for the idea but I am going to use them committing this... it is a boring patch to review and it you have to see it in action to get a sense of whether it 'works' or not.